### Evidence to the US Department of Tr ansport in the application of the Norwegian Airline Group (Norwegian) for a Foreign Air Carrier Permit

August 18, 2014

Dear Secretary Foxx,

I write as someone on the blunt ‘receiving end’ of the Norwegian business model as it relates

to Article 17 of the current EU -US Air Transport Agreement.

Please review items 1-26 of my attached declar ation detailing the fact s of my tenure as a contract Captain with the Norwegian regime.

Much has been proclaimed by Norwegian in re gard to its alleged compliance and promotion

of the human worth values within Article 17 - “ The opportunities created by the Agreement

are not intended to undermine labor standards or the labor related rights and principles contained in the parties respective laws ”.

Unlike Norwegian, Article 17 makes no distinc tion between employee and contract worker.

I received two agency contracts with Norwegia n. Each contract contai ned the stipulation I could not hold the lessee airline, No rwegian, responsible as the employer (ref item 4). Several legal jurisdictions were applicable to the working rela tionship (ref item 5).

In reference to safety, discre pancy or whistle-blowing reports , European and local Member State labor laws, including av iation regulations, refer specifi cally to an employer/employee relationship. Therefore, any tr ansgression by Norwegian against a contract crew member has effective impunity due to the complexity of applying employment law to the non-employer relationship Norwegian demands of its contract crew, notwith standing, the legal issues of jurisdiction and forum (ref item 18).

EU Directive 2003/42/EC, Article 8.4 states: “ Member States shall ensure that employees who report incidents of which they may have kn owledge are not subjected to any prejudice by their employer ”.

A contract crew member has neither protecti on nor redress from any punitive/discriminatory action by Norwegian. Consequently, contract cr ew members may not submit safety or other reports management may perceive as critical of the airline. It is implausible to suggest that such a work environment is conducive to a safety culture. It is conducive to a fear culture.

The earlier safety information is submitted, the ea rlier any threat to safety can be resolved. Any business model that would obstruct and deter such information is unprincipled.

Norwegian’s company Code of Ethics states: “ We place great importance on ensuring compliance with employees basic human right s as outlined in the International Labor Organization’s core conventions ”.

My declaration details a personal experience of Norwegian’s absolute disregard for labor standards, rights and principles, including the International Labor Organization core

convention number 158 – “ A workermay not have his employment terminated unless there is a valid reason connected with the workers aptit ude or behavior or based on the operational needs of the enterprise, establishment or service ” – (ref items 12, 13 and 14).

Every contract crew member currently working for Norwegian is exposed to, potentially, the same unethical treatment detailed in my declar ation. It is inconceivable that the Norwegian business model could comply with the spirit and intention of Article 17.

I respectfully request that you not only deny Norw egian’s application for a Foreign Air Carrier Permit, but also necessitate a review of thei r operations within the US for any possible noncompliance with FAR Part 129 – (ref item 10).

Yours truly,

Captain S. ColmanBEFORE THE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, DC

) Application of ) ) Docket No. OST-2013-0204 NORWEGIAN AIR INTERNATIONAL ) LIMITED ) ) for an exemption under 49 U.S.C. § 40109 ) and a foreign air carrier permit pursuant to ) 49 U.S.C. § 41301 (US-EU Open Skies) ) )

Declaration of Captain Stephen Colman

1. My name is Stephen Colman. I am a former c ontract pilot for Norweg ian Air Shuttle, and Norwegian Long Haul. My declaration identifi es the significant pr oblems and regulatory failures I faced when attempting to seek redress from multiple European countries’ regulators for adverse employment actions taken against me because of my safety reporting. I cannot conceive how the business model to which I was subjected could be consistent with the spirit and intent of Article 17 bis of the U.S-EU Air Transport Agreement.

2. I have been flying long-haul widebody and narrowbody airline transport category aircraft for 29 years. I hold several Airline Transpor t Pilot Licenses (ATPL) issued by various authorities, including by the United Kingdom.

3. I responded to a Norwegian Air Shuttle (“Norw egian” or “NAS”) advertisement to join the airline. Norwegian arranged tickets to attend their interview. Norwegian informed me I had been successful and gave me a choice of three agencies with which to sign a contract for a three-year term.

4. I was provided with two contracts. Each cont ract contained the specific clause that the crew member has no claim he is or was an employee of the lessee airline (the Norwegian Airline Group).

5. The employment agency I selected was “ARPI Aviation Norway.” Despite its name, the contract identified ARPI Aviation Norway’s office address as being in Poland. In the contract, ARPI Aviation Norway chose Sw edish law to govern the contract. My operational base with Norwegian was Helsinki , Finland. At the same time, my ATPL and medical are issued in the United Kingdo m, while Norwegian has its corporate headquarters/principal place of business in Norway. As can be seen, s everal legal jurisdictions potentially affected my working relationship with Norwegian.

16. Starting in May 2012, Norwegian provided all my training. I passed all exams and probationary period, including Norwegian’ s CAA-Norway-approved, mandatory Crew Resource Management (CRM) course. I also passed all subsequent exams, tests and

checks.

7. Norwegian provided me with an official cr ew member identification badge with the abbreviation ‘Empl’ (employee) with numb er, and ‘Empl’ (employee) with date, appearing on the badge. However, the name of my employment agency, ARPI Aviation Norway, did not appear on the badge.

8. In October 2012, Norwegian notified me that in addition to flying for NAS, I would also

be “ hired out ” to fly for another airline with its own Air Operators Certificate (AOC), called Norwegian Long Haul (NLH). NLH woul d operate from my Helsinki base. I was not given a choice, and was ne ither consulted nor advised as to the terms and conditions with NLH prior to being notified, but was promised “ great benefits ” which did not

materialize.

9. Norwegian company policy, as stated in both the NAS and NLH Operations Manual, Part A (OMA) 1.4.1, requires that the aircraft commander shall ensure all standard procedures, instructions and regulations as laid down by the Company and various civil aviation administrations, are adhered to by all members of his or her crew, in the air and on the ground, and “ on his [sic] own initiative make suggest ions for improvements. ” Norwegian, including its CEO, continually so licits safety information from its crew: “ It is of great importance to the co mpany that you have confidence to share your experiences

with us. ”

10. Encouraged by these company policies that pur ported to solicit safety information, during my tenure I submitted six safety/operational discrepancy reports to both NAS and NLH management. All reports were supported with relevant company and/or EU OPS regulations. One report was classified under EU Directiv e 2003/42/EC, Annex 1 B (ii) (a) and (f), as a Mandatory Occurrence Repor t. The NAS Chief Pilot, the NLH Training Manager, and the Norwegian Airline Group Safety Manager all failed to reply to any of my reports. A reply from the De puty Director of Flight Oper ations (DFO), demanded to know if I had contacted CAA Norway.

11. Following my safety/operational discrepanc y reports, the attitude of Norwegian’s management toward me became hostile. I cataloged the punitive and discriminatory actions taken against me and reported them to the Chief Pilot on November 30, 2012. The Chief Pilot did not reply. On December 20, 2012, I did hear from the Director of Flight Operations (DFO), who replied, “ I am sorry to hear that you have experienced punitive actions against you.”

12. On December 31, 2012, Norwegian terminated my contract without giving any reason. (ARPI Aviation Norway’s notice to me stated: “ Based on the decision of our client ” - Norwegian).

13. At the time Norwegian terminated my cont ract, no other Captain was terminated and Norwegian was placing advertisements for, a nd actively recruiting p ilots, most of who were considerably less experienced than me.

214. Only days before my termination, on December 20, 2012, in fact, I received an above average grade for ‘winter operations’ on my last simulator check. The examiner made the annotation; “ nice handling of aircraft ”. Norwegian assigned and authorized me to command its B737 aircraft full of its passengers on a daily basis, in cluding up to one day before termination. No disciplinary action or investigation was ever taken against me by Norwegian or ARPI Aviation Norway.

15. In January 2013, I submitted a comprehensive report to CAA Norway regarding safety and operational discrepancies at Norwegian, including the punitive action and my termination by Norwegian. CAA Norway re sponded that NAS/NLH management had addressed the issues of my re ports. However, the Director General of CAA Norway was categorically unwilling to consider any r eason, connection or coincidence for my treatment and termination by Norwegian, stating; “ Such issues were between employee and employer ” and “ Norwegian is free to hire the crew they would like to hire. ”

16. A prospective employer submitted a U.S. Pilot Record Improvement Act (PRIA) request to Norwegian’s Director of Flight Operati ons and Norwegian’s Chief Pilot. Only the respective airline is responsible to generate and retain training records. Neither officer responded to the PRIA request.

17. I notified CAA Norway of Norwegian’s refusal to comply with US Federal Law. CAA Norway stated: “ The CAA cannot comment on the US Federal Government Pilot Record Improvement Act and whether Norwegian has acted in accordance with the Act ”.

18. In addition to CAA Norway (item 15), I s ubmitted details of my safety/operational discrepancy reports, treatment and termin ation by Norwegian, to the following bodies:

(i) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) – February 25, 2013 - with reply:

“The Norwegian CAA is the body responsible fo r collecting of safety related information, safety oversight and law enforcement in th e filed of flight operations and safety management”

(ii) Finland Transport Safety Agency (TraFi) - March 14, 2013 – with reply:

“ CAA Norway is the competent authority ........”

(iii) UK Civil Aviation Authority – May 23, 2013 – with reply:

“ The fact that aircraft operate based in Helsinki or Gatwic k does not alter the responsibility of the Norwegian authority fo r oversight. CAA Norway is the competent authority ”

(iv) European Commission Flight Safety Department - July 4, 2013 – with reply:

"It is not relevant where the aircraft ope rates or where the commander is based or employed but which state ensures safety ov ersight, i.e. where the operator has its principle place of business"

3(v) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) – July 9, 2013 - with reply:

“Whether or not there is non-compliance [w ith EU Ops] can only be made by the Norwegian CAA”

“We do not agree that it is up to Finland (the state from which you operated) to assess such non-compliance”

(vi) EU Ombudsman – 17 October, 2013 – with reply:

“The responsibility to deal with these i ssue falls under the Norwegian CAA’s remit”

“Norway is not an EU member State, the Commission could not engage in infringement procedure or take other action against Norway”

(vii) Finland Occupational Safety and Discrimination Administration – June 3, 2014 – with reply:

“The airline involved [Norwegian] is not Finnish and we cannot supervise them”

(Despite Norwegian having aircraft and a large crew base in Helsinki, Finland)

(viii) Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) Director of Safety - June 6, 2014 – NO REPLY.

19. However, as I have described, CAA Norway refused to take any action concerning my

termination that I believe occurred in retaliation for my safety reporting.

20. Recently, I was made aware that the No rwegian Airline Group and ARPI Aviation Norway disclosed my personal data, including my bank deta ils and account numbers, to third parties without my express permission. Those third parties then disclosed that information to other third parties without my co nsent. Such action is in violation of the Norway Personal Data Act.

21. The Norway Personal Data Act provides th at upon request to en tities holding their personal data, a person shall receive informati on to whom and for what purpose their data was disclosed. The Act also provides that upon request, their data is removed and they

are notified of such. Necessa ry requests were made to both Norwegian and ARPI Aviation Norway Human Resource manage rs. To date, neither has replied.

22. The actions of Norwegian and ARPI Aviation No rway have placed me at risk of potential identity theft, and violate Norway’s law.

23. The Norwegian Airline Group, Code of Ethics states: “ We place great importance on ensuring compliance with employee’s basic hum an rights as outlined in the International Labor Organization’s core conventions ”. Norwegian has also stated it “ Applies the law of the country to where the employee is hired and based ”. Sadly, the facts clearly demonstrate the reality of Norwegian’s gross hypocrisy.

424. Norwegian’s lawyers in Sweden have imp lied I may expect legal repercussions for breach of contract were I to file any claim fo r discriminatory action with reference to an

“ employer/employee” relationship – ref item 4. No other definition within safety related legislation currently exists - ref EU Directive 2003/ 42/EC Article 8.4: “ Member States shall ensure that employees who report incidents of wh ich they may have knowledge are not subjected to any prejudice by their employer ”.

25. From the aforementioned documented facts, it is abundantly clear that a crewmember who is not a direct employee of the Norweg ian Airline Group, and th erefore is without union and Norway legal protections, has no re dress if managers at Norwegian take punitive and discriminatory action against them , up to termination and even after. The quagmire of legislative jurisdictions makes such relief extremely difficult, if not impossible. It is implausible to suggest that such an abhorrent working environment is conducive to a culture that promotes safety . It is conducive to a culture of fear.

26. Every contract crew member of Norwegian is exposed to and potentially subject to the same treatment detailed above. I respectfully request that NAI’s app lications be denied.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States, that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my belief.

Executed on ___________________ _______________________________ Stephen Colman

5CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I have, on this 18 day of A ugust, 2014, served the foregoing document on the persons identified below by causing a copy to be sent by electronic mail:

Reese.Davidson@dot.gov; steve.morrissey@united.com; Thomas.bolling@united.com;

dan.weiss@united.com; hershel.kame n@united.com; sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com;

chris.walker@delta.com; Andrea.N ewman@delta.com; mlbenge@zsrlaw.com;

rpommer@atlasair.com; russell.bailey@alpa.org; david.semanchik@alpa.org;

jonathan.cohen@alpa.org; robert.wirick@aa.com; francis.heil@aa.com;

michael.wascom@aa.com; howard.kass@aa.co m; jesse.elliot@faa.gov;

douglas.schwab@faa.gov; nicholas.tsokr is@faa.gov; john.y.chen@faa.gov;

anita.mosner@hklaw.com; jennifer.no wak@hklaw.com; nssparks@fedex.com;

gbleopard@fedex.com; pvs@eurocockpit.be cc@eurocockpit.be

romanow@pillsburylaw.com; jennifer.trock@pillsburylaw.com;

peter.nelson@pillsburylaw.com; Melinda.hernandez@pillsbury.com;

dberg@airlines.org; jcasey@airlines.org; kglatz@airlines.org;

CBethke@airlines.org; edw@ttd.org; ejames@jamhoff.com;

info@airlineinfo.com; clytle@portoakland.com; kgeorge@broward.org;

mrichardson@swapa.org; sshur@traveltech.org; michael.whitaker@faa.gov;

ottar.ostnes@sd.dep.no; david.batchelor@ sesarju.eu; felix.leinemann@eeas.europa.eu;

matthew.baldwin@ec.europa.eu; john.hanlon@e lfaa.com; dhainbach@ggh-airlaw.com;

Athar.HusainKhan@aea.be;

___________________________

Captain Steve Colman